What are legitimate reasons for divorce?

[Rasputin_Vol]

these are legitimate reasons for divorce:

Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex) 70% of all marriages

Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)

Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)

Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage) 90% of all marriages

Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children. 90% of all marriages

One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.

Congratulations.

You've just ended the institution of marriage in the United States...

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Congratulations.

You've just ended the institution of marriage in the United States...

and thats why 50% of marriages end in divorce... The other 40% are just miserable as hell

:hi:

 

[GVF]

Bingo. It's easy to look to a Christian to find a reason to doubt Christianity. We are flawed and stumble. But this is why we are supposed to look to Christ as the role model and not man. A non-Christian says "see the hypocrites? This is why I doubt that faith." Fortunately for us the standard is not to be completely perfect. We strive but until we leave the flesh we stumble.

Excellent point. If you look to other humans concerning christianity, you will be disillusioned and disappointed. We are absolutely supposed to look to Christ. We worship and study and edify one another, but you look to Christ. I don't rest my ears on the preacher. I attend with the "saints", but I do my own study for the truth at hte same time.

 

[GVF]

Very true but not for the reasons you think.

God's attributes include love, mercy, and grace but also justice. This is why the economy of the Gospel was necessary.

Justice demands a payment for sin. Love demands a means of forgiveness.

Jesus had to be sinless or else His death would have simply been the just punishment for His own sin. He died a horrible death and bore the full force of God's wrath for the sins of mankind. Christ became the substitute for all who would believe on Him and call on Him for forgiveness with a repentant heart and willing to "take up their cross and follow Him".

He will forgive any sin but only through Christ. John 14:6

Except for Blasphemy. That he will not forgive.

 

[sjt18]

Except for Blasphemy. That he will not forgive.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Not just blasphemy.

 

[sjt18]

And this is one of many places where the Bible loses me. That is such an archaic rule to make.

It is archaic to not deny your spouse sex?

I'd imagine that if I ever became religious, I'd focus more on my relationship with God rather than the teachings of a book written by man.

That presumes that your opinion regarding the Bible is true rather than the opinions of the writers of the Bible and studious, faithful, scholarly Christians for 2000 years.

 

[sjt18]

being drunk isn't a sin.

According the Bible it is. I like you but accept God's authority over yours 100% of the time.

very rarely have lied in my life. no never cheated. very rarely.

I didnt' say i was without sin completely, just that i'm live without sin far more than the average person.

According to the Bible... that simply isn't enough. All sin is rebellion and bring enmity between a man and God.

I am not trying to be offensive but you are probably less perfect than what you think.

FTR, the most "holy" and sinless people Jesus encountered were also the ones He condemned the most. They were too proud and self-righteous to humble themselves and abandon their own religious presumptions and preconditions. They hated Jesus because He dared to declare Himself THE WAY and Only begotten Son of God... the Pharisees.

Biblically speaking the greatest condemnation is for those who are self-righteous rather than humbling themselves to accept Christ as Savior and Lord.

 

[sjt18]

then half of the pastors i know are going to hell.

I have very little doubt of this and it has little to do with drunkeness.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It is archaic to not deny your spouse sex?

It's archaic to assume your body also belongs to your spouse's. It's a marriage... not a business contract. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the verse that mandates sex within marriage so that Satan doesn't capitalize on your lack of self-control.

That's just plain loopy.

That presumes that your opinion regarding the Bible is true rather than the opinions of the writers of the Bible and studious, faithful, scholarly Christians for 2000 years.

It's very Christ-like of you to hold faith to a standard, isn't it? If you think the contents of the Bible should be more important to a Christian than his personal relationship with God, then what's the point of Christianity?

Seems like an omniscient being would be content with a disciple's faith in "Him" so long as his morals were in good stead. Any other mentality exhibited by a celestial being would make him... well, as droski put it earlier, a d-bag.

Care to address the second half of my previous post as well? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

 

[Gramps]

and thats why 50% of marriages end in divorce... The other 40% are just miserable as hell

:hi:

You think only 10% are happy?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You think only 10% are happy?

Sounds about right.

 

[sjt18]

It's archaic to assume your body also belongs to your spouse's. It's a marriage... not a business contract. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the verse that mandates sex within marriage so that Satan doesn't capitalize on your lack of self-control.

That's just plain loopy.

I think your ideas are completely "loopy". Yes. Your body "belongs" to your spouse sexually speaking in a good marriage regardless of religion. It requires that kind of devotion on many levels to make a marriage work and be "happy". I am sad for you truly if you have not and will not let yourself experience genuine, self-abandoning, self-giving, selfless love.

It's very Christ-like of you to hold faith to a standard, isn't it? If you think the contents of the Bible should be more important to a Christian than his personal relationship with God, then what's the point of Christianity?

You keep asserting a dichotomy where there is none. According to Jesus, if we love Him then we keep His commandments. Unless you really want it, I won't go into the longer proof but the NT claims to be the revelation of "His commandments".

The more biblical someone lives... the greater the "personal relationship" becomes.

Seems like an omniscient being would be content with a disciple's faith in "Him" so long as his morals were in good stead. Any other mentality exhibited by a celestial being would make him... well, as droski put it earlier, a d-bag.

Sorry but no. A God that was unjust or "winked at sin" as the NT puts it would be no more worthy of worship than the supposedly unmerciful God that you protest.

If God tolerated sin then that would make Him arbitrary and unfair. If He made no way for sin to be forgiving then that would make Him not only harsh and unloving but would make His purposes in creation futile.

 

[sjt18]

Going back to what droski said about God recognizing the good in people regardless of their faith, I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Stories like the good Samaritan, to me, seem as though God would recognize a person for their deeds and not their exoteric strength.

That story was not used as an illustration of how one is "saved". It was an illustration of what it means to be a "neighbor".

FWIW, James states directly and the NT teaches consistently that "faith without works" is "dead"... IOW's, it is fraudulent and never existed. It does not teach that "good deeds" redeem anyone since they can never pay the price. The price was Christ's life. What "good deeds" do you think could make up for the death of a completely innocent person who volunteered to suffer in your place for transgressions you have actually committed?

Good deeds that are acceptable to God are therefore a product of a relationship with Christ... not the cause of it... and certainly not the path around it.

I mean, the thought that God would send a good man to hell for simply being ambivalent about His existence would further turn me off. I know you or someone else is going to spew out some "these aren't your rules to make" crap, but that's my input.

Is this the part you wanted me to comment on?

If so then I can only answer you this. God so loved those "good people" that He gave His only Son to die for their sins that were by no means "good". He sacrificed the completely just and good for the unjust and sinful.

His only request is that people believe and follow. His desire is that this great act of love is reciprocated... and because He makes that a prerequisite for salvation you think He is asking too much?

 

[bamacheats]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Not just blasphemy.

Does this mean there is no Trinity? If God is 1+1+1=1 then blasphemy against Holy Ghost/Spirit is also blasphemy against Father and Son, but no mention of them.

 

[T-TownVol]

Does this mean there is no Trinity? If God is 1+1+1=1 then blasphemy against Holy Ghost/Spirit is also blasphemy against Father and Son, but no mention of them.

5 days since his comment and this is the best you can come up with?
You guys are trying WAY too hard.

 

[IPorange]

5 days since his comment and this is the best you can come up with?
You guys are trying WAY too hard.

I didn't bother replying, since we already had the "If God doesn't forgive all sins, then he really isn't God and the Bible is bunk" conversation.

 

[T-TownVol]

I didn't bother replying, since we already had the "If God doesn't forgive all sins, then he really isn't God and the Bible is bunk" conversation.

I concur...that argument is "bunk".

 

[sjt18]

Does this mean there is no Trinity? If God is 1+1+1=1 then blasphemy against Holy Ghost/Spirit is also blasphemy against Father and Son, but no mention of them.

No. It means it is a difficult saying that I refuse to be dogmatic over. I was just reminding the poster that the text says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

There are several popular interpretations. It is not a passage critical to any core doctrine.

The most credible IMO is that "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is attributing the miracles of Christ to Satan... which the Pharisees did.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I think your ideas are completely "loopy". Yes. Your body "belongs" to your spouse sexually speaking in a good marriage regardless of religion. It requires that kind of devotion on many levels to make a marriage work and be "happy". I am sad for you truly if you have not and will not let yourself experience genuine, self-abandoning, self-giving, selfless love.

Given the quotations, I'm guessing our definition of "belong" is different. MY definition (in the relative sense) of that word would mean that the relationship would be sexually monogamous. As far as habits (such as food/intoxicant intake [diet, smoking, gluttony]), that is purely up to the individual. Any other exercise of vicarious control would be a mere demonstration of modernized misogyny/misandry, which would stem from a respective gender's need to control the spouse. If such a situation would arise, then the couple in this scenario should/(hopefully) would split.

You keep asserting a dichotomy where there is none. According to Jesus, if we love Him then we keep His commandments. Unless you really want it, I won't go into the longer proof but the NT claims to be the revelation of "His commandments".

You know this is going to lead to the predestination debate, right? Most of the commandments are conducive to common law, anyway. The real roadblock that the uncommon case would run into would be found under "No other gods before me." Some folks don't learn about the bible... what the %$#% happens then?

The more biblical someone lives... the greater the "personal relationship" becomes.

Biblical... personal relationship... you're going to need to elaborate on these in order to get a valid point across. Superficial terms are quickly defining your posts here.


I would respond to the rest. But my head is spinning... I have an empty stomach... and I need to pass out. I lack the grasp on my vestibular senses to type coherently without excessive effort. Good evening.

 

[sjt18]

Given the quotations, I'm guessing our definition of "belong" is different. MY definition (in the relative sense) of that word would mean that the relationship would be sexually monogamous. As far as habits (such as food/intoxicant intake [diet, smoking, gluttony]), that is purely up to the individual.

Then they are different. If you use or abuse your body in a way that hurts or "denies" your spouse then that action should be subordinated to the welfare and happiness of the spouse.

Love isn't first and foremost a "feeling". It is a conscious choice to put someone else's desires and needs above your own even to the point of REAL sacrifice. The greatest expressions of love are most often toward people who are unworthy. It is easy to "love" someone when it feels good or there is personal benefit/gratification. The real test is loving someone when you don't want to or it costs something.

Honestly I would not consider drinking, smoking, gluttony, etc to be extraordinary sacrifices to make to please someone you profess to love.

Any other exercise of vicarious control would be a mere demonstration of modernized misogyny/misandry, which would stem from a respective gender's need to control the spouse. If such a situation would arise, then the couple in this scenario should/(hopefully) would split.

This statement is false at every point you attempted to make. The biblical ideal of submission in marriage is voluntary (regardless of whether someone derived it directly from the Bible or not for Droski). It is an act of love initiated by the person you would deem a victim.

I do feel sorry for you if you think that loving relationships in which two people give themselves up to each other are a "mere demonstration of modernized misogyny/misandry, which would stem from a respective gender's need to control the spouse"... what a bunch of bunk someone has fed you.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between submission and oppression. They aren't the same at all.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Then they are different. If you use or abuse your body in a way that hurts or "denies" your spouse then that action should be subordinated to the welfare and happiness of the spouse.

Submission, that's nice.

Love isn't first and foremost a "feeling". It is a conscious choice to put someone else's desires and needs above your own even to the point of REAL sacrifice. The greatest expressions of love are most often toward people who are unworthy. It is easy to "love" someone when it feels good or there is personal benefit/gratification. The real test is loving someone when you don't want to or it costs something.

With love comes acceptance. You missed that part, I s'pose. Love is also about endurance, fortitude, and die-hard companionship. Some jerk said earlier that drug use is a legitimate reason for divorce. If you ask me, it takes love to soldier through a disease like drug addiction and HELP your spouse. Sacrifice goes both ways, sir.

Honestly I would not consider drinking, smoking, gluttony, etc to be extraordinary sacrifices to make to please someone you profess to love.

I wouldn't consider it a huge sacrifice to accept those things in someone you love. We can keep playing this game all day... love's funny like that... a lot of the facets involved in a loving relationship can go both ways.

This statement is false at every point you attempted to make. The biblical ideal of submission in marriage is voluntary (regardless of whether someone derived it directly from the Bible or not for Droski). It is an act of love initiated by the person you would deem a victim.

I do feel sorry for you if you think that loving relationships in which two people give themselves up to each other are a "mere demonstration of modernized misogyny/misandry, which would stem from a respective gender's need to control the spouse"... what a bunch of bunk someone has fed you.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between submission and oppression. They aren't the same at all.

How rude... this is simple debate, and you feel the liberty to be so condescending when someone disagrees with you.

Anyway, you're misinterpreting everything I say, as per usual. Love isn't politics. It's not about compromise. It's about acceptance, learning, and standing by someone.

I don't think love is an act of submission. I think the idea that someone has to change in order for a person to fall in love with them is complete BS. Maybe you have forgotten (or never experienced this concept in the first place, I don't know), but love is a choice. Nobody is conscripted into a monogamous relationship... two people choose one another. Because of that choice, there's no excuse to change a person. You chose to be with them. If you don't like who they are, then dammit, don't act as though you're in love with them.

It's as simple as that.

Giving yourself up to someone IS NOT the same as changing your spouse to better fit your perfect picture.

You seem to have difficulty creating a valid rebuttal... from what I've seen in our debates as well as others you've been in, you don't really listen. You look for words and expressions that get you all pissy, and you run with it.

 

[sjt18]

You know this is going to lead to the predestination debate, right?

That would not bother me though I do not claim to fully understand it. But if your intent is to only use such a debate as a diversion... I would just as soon finish this discussion instead.

Most of the commandments are conducive to common law, anyway.

Which should tell you something.

The real roadblock that the uncommon case would run into would be found under "No other gods before me." Some folks don't learn about the bible... what the %$#% happens then?

Romans 1:18-24, Romans 2:15-16

According to Paul, all you need to become a "seeker" of Christ is written on your conscience and in creation itself. The hard hearted will not believe regardless of what is put before them. Christ's "sheep" (John 10:14-16) hear His voice and follow Him.

IOW's, not a single one who would come has been denied the opportunity to come.

Also, you operate on the false assumption that anyone deserves to be saved or that if anyone has an opportunity that all must have the same opportunity or else it isn't "fair". The truth is that it isn't "fair" that anyone gets an opportunity. The "unfairness" is that Christ died in our stead. If God condems any or all then it will be their just "wages" (Romans 6:23).

If a governor commutes the sentence of one murderer, does that mean that all others who are equally guilty should get the exact same opportunity? No. The others are receiving what they justly earned for themselves.

Biblical... personal relationship... you're going to need to elaborate on these in order to get a valid point across. Superficial terms are quickly defining your posts here.

Ask questions and I will answer them. I have much more often been accused of being too detailed.

In short, the NT provides a prescription for reconciliation between sinful men and their Creator. It was made possible by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. The event of conversion upon being "born again" quickens or brings to life a spirit that was previously dead in sin. That spirit then comes into fellowship with the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. The Spirit's purpose is to sanctify the believer and make them fit to serve their designed purpose in the "body of Christ- the Church". Sanctification also grows the spiritual relationship between the believer and Christ through the teaching/convicting presence of the Spirit by the application of scriptural principles and revelation.

One cannot have a personal relationship with Christ without the indwelling Spirit, scripture, prayer, and meditation. This activity however is not an end to itself... it must change the will, heart, and behavior. The Spirit cannot apply or bring to mind through spiritual communion something we do not know.

Again, if you have questions I will try to answer. It is difficult for me to know how to discuss this with you since it is basically "common knowledge" among those that I would typically discuss deeper faith issues with.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

That would not bother me though I do not claim to fully understand it. But if your intent is to only use such a debate as a diversion... I would just as soon finish this discussion instead.

There you go with your little presumptions again. I was merely making an observation, as this is where a large number of predestination debates begin.

Which should tell you something.

That the ten commandments were written/conceived by man and man alone? Absolutely.

Romans 1:18-24, Romans 2:15-16

According to Paul, all you need to become a "seeker" of Christ is written on your conscience and in creation itself. The hard hearted will not believe regardless of what is put before them. Christ's "sheep" (John 10:14-16) hear His voice and follow Him.

IOW's, not a single one who would come has been denied the opportunity to come.

Also, you operate on the false assumption that anyone deserves to be saved or that if anyone has an opportunity that all must have the same opportunity or else it isn't "fair". The truth is that it isn't "fair" that anyone gets an opportunity. The "unfairness" is that Christ died in our stead. If God condems any or all then it will be their just "wages" (Romans 6:23).

Nice way of balancing the problem... sadly, it's still a crock of %$#@ that any given American who knows of Jesus has a shot at admittance into heaven yet some illiterate child in Djibouti will live and die without knowing about the commandments, jesus, or the concept of being saved. Seems like your omniscient God would have amended that... but as you say, it's not supposed to be fair. :ermm:

If a governor commutes the sentence of one murderer, does that mean that all others who are equally guilty should get the exact same opportunity? No. The others are receiving what they justly earned for themselves.

Terrible analogy... not at all relevant. Men, women, and children in distant lands who have never been exposed to the concept of Christianity aren't inmates on death row. They're children of your God, aren't they?

In short, the NT provides a prescription for reconciliation between sinful men and their Creator. It was made possible by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. The event of conversion upon being "born again" quickens or brings to life a spirit that was previously dead in sin. That spirit then comes into fellowship with the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. The Spirit's purpose is to sanctify the believer and make them fit to serve their designed purpose in the "body of Christ- the Church". Sanctification also grows the spiritual relationship between the believer and Christ through the teaching/convicting presence of the Spirit by the application of scriptural principles and revelation.

All this because the Jews killed one of the greatest religious scholars in human history, huh? That's a heckuva deal.

One cannot have a personal relationship with Christ without the indwelling Spirit, scripture, prayer, and meditation. This activity however is not an end to itself... it must change the will, heart, and behavior. The Spirit cannot apply or bring to mind through spiritual communion something we do not know.

Again, if you have questions I will try to answer. It is difficult for me to know how to discuss this with you since it is basically "common knowledge" among those that I would typically discuss deeper faith issues with.

Yeah, sorry I spent my Sundays listening to Iron Maiden and sacrificing small mammals. This common knowledge is SOOOO foreign to me.

Anyway, that tidbit you just spouted is a decent, but rough illustration of why exoteric faith is critical in attaining esoteric euphoria; the realization of God.

You gotta go through the motions to reach heavenly bliss... no brainer.

 

[sjt18]

Submission, that's nice.

Christ submitted to die on the cross... I don't think asking spouses to submit to one another compares, do you?

With love comes acceptance. You missed that part, I s'pose.

Not necessarily. I love my wife. I don't accept some occasional behaviors but rather tolerate them. She does the same. Through love, we try to help each other change.

There is a lot of tolerance in love... loving someone in spite of problems.

Love is also about endurance, fortitude, and die-hard companionship. Some jerk said earlier that drug use is a legitimate reason for divorce. If you ask me, it takes love to soldier through a disease like drug addiction and HELP your spouse. Sacrifice goes both ways, sir.

At what point did I say that it didn't? Thing is though... you only control you. If you love, you can't play "Let's Make a Deal"... you have to commit without expectation of pay back.

The relationship cannot work unless both make a full commitment.

I wouldn't consider it a huge sacrifice to accept those things in someone you love. We can keep playing this game all day... love's funny like that... a lot of the facets involved in a loving relationship can go both ways.

That would be an example of loving tolerance... but if it is "two ways" then the other person should be willing to give it up, right?

We may be into semantics because you now seem to be agreeing with me.

How rude... this is simple debate, and you feel the liberty to be so condescending when someone disagrees with you.

I'm sorry but I didn't know how to state it clearly enough without risking being pointed. You seemed to be saying that submission was a bad thing while I was arguing that submission is a necessary thing in "love". Now you seem to be arguing something different than before.

Anyway, you're misinterpreting everything I say, as per usual. Love isn't politics. It's not about compromise. It's about acceptance, learning, and standing by someone.

IOW's, submitting yourself and your interests to them... right? Submitting your freedom and body to them, right?

I don't think love is an act of submission. I think the idea that someone has to change in order for a person to fall in love with them is complete BS. Maybe you have forgotten (or never experienced this concept in the first place, I don't know), but love is a choice. Nobody is conscripted into a monogamous relationship... two people choose one another. Because of that choice, there's no excuse to change a person. You chose to be with them. If you don't like who they are, then dammit, don't act as though you're in love with them.

Not trying to be condescending at all but I have to wonder again if you understand the concept of submission as taught in the Bible.

Love is indeed the chosen act of giving yourself and subordinating your desires and interests to another person to whom you have devoted yourself.
By definition- submission.

Giving yourself up to someone IS NOT the same as changing your spouse to better fit your perfect picture.

Huh? Giving yourself up IS the same as changing yourself to better fit your spouses perfect picture.

You seem to have difficulty creating a valid rebuttal... from what I've seen in our debates as well as others you've been in, you don't really listen. You look for words and expressions that get you all pissy, and you run with it.

Did you say something about being rude and condescending? Do you really want to get into generalizations about posts?

Yes. I look for words and expressions then respond to them. How is that not really listening? How else are we supposed to communicate? If it isn't what you mean then either think it through beforehand or clarify.

You seem to be pretty hung up on the word submission but now seem to have argued back to me that very idea... repeatedly and condescendingly.

 

[sjt18]

They're children of your God, aren't they?
.

No. Not according to the NT. According the NT, the unredeemed are rebellious enemies of God by their willful choice to sin and serve self rather than God.

In Romans 8 and in other places, we are told that we must be "adopted".

As for the rest, if you want to have a conversation then I am willing. If you want to argue then I am finished.